Flu Shots

[Dabljuh]

How about "Groupthink"

"Groupthink" and "Academia" produce some highly interesting results on google.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think groupthink is a pretty good description of what goes on here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Symptoms of groupthink

In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.

2. Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.

3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil or stupid.

5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".

6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Go take a look at the "6 Reasons to Question Vaccinations" thread and see how many of the above tactics you can spot being used against me (and a few others), to a greater or lesser extent.

Can you spot who in the medical threads takes on the role of Mindguard(s)?

 

[Dabljuh]

This is a must read about "Groupthink in Academia"

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-10-08-1.html

Originally, it was just a handful of scientists working on the cutting edge of a strange approach to the Grand Unified Theory -- the attempt to discover how gravity relates to the other three Forces of physics (electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear).

These guys were legitimate scientific heroes -- that is, they pursued their ideas despite the fact that they were getting little or no funding. Because of the way science works in the American university, the lack of prospects for grant money meant that they couldn't even get tenure. They sacrificed in order to follow up on a very, very promising line of inquiry.

Then, all of a sudden -- Smolin isolates the six-month period in which it happened -- a few leading professors suddenly declared that String Theory, instead of being a weird backwater, was Where It's At.

Overnight, those untenured recluses were the most important guys in the field.

Well, fads come and go in every discipline. But this time something strange and different happened. String Theory very quickly became, not the hottest field, but the Only Game In Town.

Smolin charts it very carefully. Within a very short time, the only young graduate students who were getting prestigious job offers were the ones working on String Theory. It was harder and harder to get any papers published in the peer reviewed journals unless you were working on String Theory.

Luckily we know medicine is so much more reliable as a testable science than physics.

 

[Dabljuh]

This article also has a list of groupthink symptoms, they're slightly different. Lets see if they can apply to vaccinations. (Note that these are just symptoms of groupthink, not proof of anything)

1. Overestimates its invulnerability or high moral stance,

Well... knowing some "internet forum doctors" I feel this is true.

2. Collectively rationalizes the decisions it makes,

"It'd be unethical to test vaccinations against a placebo since we already know they're effective"

3. Demonizes or stereotypes outgroups and their leaders,

Everyone who opposes vaccination is a quack and a homeopath and a "spiritual healing" emo idiot.

4. Has a culture of uniformity where individuals censor themselves and others so that the facade of group unanimity is maintained, and

Any doctor who disagrees about vaccinations is attacked on a personal level

5. Contains members who take it upon themselves to protect the group leader by keeping information, theirs or other group members', from the leader.

Those quasi-doctors here, maybe?

Er well. I haven't done much research into groupthink in academia. Will have to do so in the future. Interesting subject.

 

[fls]

Luckily we know medicine is so much more reliable as a testable science than physics.

The result of smashing people together at high speeds would be pretty consistent, anyway.

Linda

 

[fls]

Er well. I haven't done much research into groupthink in academia. Will have to do so in the future. Interesting subject.

Doubleplusgood.

Linda

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I don't where dab gets his ridiculous quotes from. Not from anyone here. The strawmen are waving in the wind. Not even a good try to build anything that resembles what anyone states here.

There are no mindguards here. You guys are simply resorting to examples of paranoid speak. "mindguard" is paranoid speak for "I don't like that you rip my garbage to shreds".

What you don't seem to get, and it's always frustrating, is that there is no objection to "dissenting information". There is debunking of BAD misinformation or clarification of information that has been misrepresented.

The fact that you have to resort to paranoid speak rather than present your "dissenting information" in a professional and informative manner is telling.

Dab figures magic water is a better idea than vaccines. Magic water won't prevent the tetanus microbe from putting you in the hospital for a month or killing you should you come in contact with it. But, whatever, I guess this is just more "mind guard" posting from me.

 

[Dabljuh]

There are no mindguards here. You guys are simply resorting to examples of paranoid speak. "mindguard" is paranoid speak for "I don't like that you rip my garbage to shreds".

You do realize that if I was paranoid, you would reinforce that perception of you by telling me that I was just paranoid and you're not a brainwashed "mind guard" ? Well that's the problem with paranoia...

But actually I think the "mindguards" wouldn't be located here, I'd think they'd be meant to keep the minds "pure" internally (inside the academic system). Meaning few individuals (mind guards) would viciously call out and attack people who voice thoughts that dissent from groupthink, e.g., publish a vaccination-critical paper.

What you don't seem to get, and it's always frustrating, is that there is no objection to "dissenting information". There is debunking of BAD misinformation or clarification of information that has been misrepresented.

Lets for a second pretend that was the case. Facts. Stuff like that. You have all the facts behind you and I'm just using dirty tactics.

Dab figures magic water is a better idea than vaccines. Magic water won't prevent the tetanus microbe from putting you in the hospital for a month or killing you should you come in contact with it. But, whatever, I guess this is just more "mind guard" posting from me.

What the frack is magic water? Weren't you just calling me out for using straw mans 10 lines up?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Aww, dab gets his buttons pushed so easily.

What is magic water, awww, you don't like when I call homeopathy magic water?

Hmm, analyzing a badly done paper is a necessary criticism. If you don't like those criticisms, then why don't you defend the paper rather than resorting to paranoid accusations of mindguarding?

Go ahead. Defend away. Would love to see your facts.

 

[robinson]

...The strawmen are waving in the wind. ... Magic water won't prevent the tetanus microbe from putting you in the hospital for a month or killing you should you come in contact with it. ...

Talk about strawmen. Get a grip. Tetanus isn't some superbug like Hospital Staph. Exposure happens all the time. It rarely makes anybody sick. You obviously don't know much about Tetanus, or how to make a point for that matter.

In regards to Flu shots, Tetanus is a good example of a vaccine that works, if we had a Flu shot that worked as well as a Tetanus shot we wouldn't fear the Flu. Or be having this conversation.

 

[kellyb]

Back to the flu...
There was a thread here a while back about how the maternal immune response to influenza might cause schitzophrenia in a fetus.
There was an article about that this week:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301327.html

But if research into the links between early maternal infections and schizophrenia might one day provide researchers with clues about how to attack the disease before symptoms become apparent, it also raises difficult public health conundrums.
That's because the newest studies suggest the culprit may not be infections such as the flu per se, but pregnant mothers' immune reactions to such infections. Current guidelines recommend that pregnant women get a flu shot -- and the point of the flu vaccine is to set off an immune reaction. If the risk for schizophrenia is increased as a result of maternal antibodies, might protecting mom and baby from the flu raise the risk the child could get schizophrenia years down the road?

I like the psychology here:

"Obviously, the safe thing to do is to go with the experts, and the experts are the CDC," said Paul Patterson, a professor of biology at the California Institute of Technology and one of the leading researchers into the link between maternal infections and schizophrenia. "However, if it was my wife, I would not [want] her vaccinated."

Hmm...

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Exposure to tetanus rarely makes anyone sick? Evidence? The exposure we want to protect people from is the direct contact with the bloodstream. You need protection when that happens. Obviously you don't know anything about when tetanus becomes a menace. If you don't care about this risk, then don't get the shot. Take your chances that you will never need the protection, I don't care.

Flu strains are ever changing. Tetanus is completely different. If you figure you can come up with a better vaccine for the kind of bugs that the flu strains are, then give it a shot.

Get a clue about the different kinds of microbes there are, and then get back to us.

http://www.gsbs.utmb.edu/microbook/intoviro.htm


Virus-flu
Bacteria-tetanus
Toxin-what makes tetanus dangerous

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Out of context again kelly, typical tactic.

He said he would recommend it for his PREGNANT wife. He also wouldn't want her to get the flu either, for the SAME reason. I guess he's going to lock her up in a sterile bubble for nine months.

Epidemiologists have found that children of women who were pregnant during widespread flu epidemics seemed to have higher risk for schizophrenia. But critics have said there's insufficient evidence to assert a causative relationship because such studies did not confirm that the pregnant women had the flu.

Still, your expert, as quoted above, is still afraid.

 

[kellyb]

Out of context again kelly, typical tactic.

He said he would recommend it for his PREGNANT wife.

Indeed, that is the topic of the article.
I thought I was being clear by prefacing the link and quote with:

There was a thread here a while back about how the maternal immune response to influenza might cause schizophrenia in a fetus.
There was an article about that this week:

Maybe I should have bolded it when I wrote it to keep the confusion down, though.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Hmm, yes, your post hasn't changed at all. I like how you left your psychology comment though.

 

[Dymanic]

There was a thread here a while back about how the maternal immune response to influenza might cause schitzophrenia in a fetus.

And, in that thread, you noted:

It's interesting that it's not even the actual flu virus that does it. It's the mother's immune response. (probably inflammatory cytokines).

But it might be IgG, too...

So, if we call it 50/50 that it's cytokines versus IgG, and if the chances of catching flu are, say, one in ten, then with the vax you have a 100% chance at a 50% chance of aquiring the risk factor (treating seroconversion as a given), and without the vax, you have a one in ten chance at a 100% chance.

Is that about the way you'd figure it?

 

[kellyb]

Hmm, yes, your post hasn't changed at all. I like how you left your psychology comment though.

What do you mean?

 

[Dabljuh]

Symptom of Groupthink:

3. Demonizes or stereotypes outgroups and their leaders,

Aww, dab gets his buttons pushed so easily.

What is magic water, awww, you don't like when I call homeopathy magic water?

I'm not a homeopath. I think it's quackery, just like vaccination. I'd readily say that if done properly, homeopathy at least isn't dangerous. Unlike vaccination. But that's the limit of my defense of homeopathy.

Go ahead. Defend away. Would love to see your facts.

Facts? This is the internet. All that can be provided is argument. Arguments can be rejected, or refuted. And have been provided already.

 

[Dabljuh]

Epidemiologists have found that children of women who were pregnant during widespread flu epidemics seemed to have higher risk for schizophrenia. But critics have said there's insufficient evidence to assert a causative relationship because such studies did not confirm that the pregnant women had the flu.

I.e. hypochondriacs would more likely bear schitzophrenic children?

 

[kellyb]

And, in that thread, you noted:



So, if we call it 50/50 that it's cytokines versus IgG, and if the chances of catching flu are, say, one in ten, then with the vax you have a 100% chance at a 50% chance of aquiring the risk factor (treating seroconversion as a given), and without the vax, you have a one in ten chance at a 100% chance.

Is that about the way you'd figure it?

Yep. That looks about right. It might vary some with your chances of catching the flu.